I agree with Chad and Evan, an extremely permissive Open Source license would be my deal clincher.<br><br>With that being said, I am not sure what Open Source license out there would be better suited for us.<br><br><br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Evan David Light</b> <<a href="mailto:evan@tiggerpalace.com">evan@tiggerpalace.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
That would be my going in position as well. This allows us to<br>potentially benefit other organizations long term other than the one<br>that we target for assistance.<br><br>On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
<br><br>> On 8/16/07, Helder Ribeiro <<a href="mailto:helder@gmail.com">helder@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> Just a small question: are we talking about free software here?<br>>><br>>> I mean, that sounds like an obvious "yes" to me, but I don't know
<br>>> people's backgrounds on this list or how strongly they feel one<br>>> way or<br>>> the other.<br>>><br>><br>> My vote would be for software to be licensed under an extremely<br>> permissive Open Source license.
<br>><br>> Chad<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Rubyforchange-talk mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Rubyforchange-talk@rubyforge.org">Rubyforchange-talk@rubyforge.org</a><br>>
<a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Rubyforchange-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rubyforchange-talk@rubyforge.org">Rubyforchange-talk@rubyforge.org</a><br><a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubyforchange-talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>